Liberals and conservatives alike are well aware that declining unemployment rate masks the struggles that people are increasingly having in finding good, decent-paying stable employment. The labor participation rate—the percent of people age 16-64 who are employed or looking for work is down to 62.7%, the lowest since early 1978. The median household income in inflation-adjusted dollars is at its lowest since 1995.
The question is what to do about it? In the just completed election cycle, we’ve heard lots of bumper-sticker rhetoric with too few specifics—And indeed the devil is in the detail. It’s not enough for liberals to say “Build infrastructure and “Raise the minimum wage.” It’s not enough for conservatives and libertarians to say, “Cut taxes and let the free market do its thing.” There really are pros, cons, and tradeoffs to all solutions. If it were easy and clear, a U.S. jobs-creation policy would have been enacted long ago.
In an attempt to provide more nuance, more light than heat, on the Nov 9, 2014 edition of Work with Marty Nemko, two thoughtful experts—not politicians—debate that question: Is a liberal/progressive approach to job creation wiser or is a conservative/libertarian approach? On the Left, Jared Bernstein is a Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Vice President Joe Biden in the Obama Administration. Michael Strain is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and former Assistant Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. His essays and op-eds have been published in outlets ranging from the New York Times and The Atlantic on the Left to the National Review, Weekly Standard, and Forbes on the right.
Unlike in a traditional debate, the goal is not to have a winner. It is for both sides’ legitimate points to be made, with each side acknowledging the other side’s valid points. The debate is a success to the extent that we’ve honestly and intelligently explored the issue of how to create jobs in full dimension. Yet it still is a debate, not just a conversation because the clash of ideas often is a useful vehicle for parsing out the best arguments.